When Paying Taxes Becomes a Mortal Sin

[Corki]

Thanks everybody for the well-thought out replies so far. Balian, I agree with your garage sale analogy, but if the guy tells you that he is going to kill someone with the hammer that you have not yet sold to him, then you won’t sell him the hammer.

SW85, I doubt that the magisterium has ruled on the specific question of paying taxes when you know that the money is going to be used to kill innocent people. If it were to rule on that specific question, and say that it is not a mortal sin, then it would be impossible for me to believe it. It would be like me believing a magisterium that says “Jesus is not the Christ.”

I was hoping to get some answers to my original yes/no question. Here is another way to ask it: Assuming that it is a mortal sin to help cover the cost of abortions, is it also a mortal sin to help cover the cost of vasectomies?

Later, I will explain why I asked this question. Thanks.

It’s not an immoral law to collect taxes. The laws that are immoral are those that let the government use funds for abortion and other immoral activities. We must resist the laws that are immoral. At best, payment of taxes is the extremely remote material cooperation with evil. The more remote the cooperation is, the less likely it is sinful.

Now, that being said, there is nothing wrong with reducing the means that the government has to do evil. ExGratia’s idea is very intriging.

An alternative is to increase your deductions to offset any use of your tax money for abortions or other evils. For example, if you estimate that $200 of your tax money each year goes to pay for immoral activities, increase your charitable giving to an amount that will reduce your taxes by $200. If your charitable giving is to something that fights the government’s abortion agenda, such as a crisis pregnancy center, you make double the impact.

 

[rfournier103]

The government collects lots of money from lots of people. There is no way of knowing what your money is going to be used for. As an earlier poster wisely stated… they most certainly ARE going to get their money. Have you tried contacting your Congressional Representitives? They may be able to help get abortion “un-legalized.” Our money goes to many things. Roads, utilities, military, police, fire, you name it. The pittience we hand over to Uncle Sam is so widely dispersed, who’s to say where it goes? It is the DUTY of every citizen to pay his taxes. They demand the money; and what they choose to do with it is on THEM, says I.

I, for one, am sick of BILLIONS (yes, BILLIONS) of dollars being sent to hostile nations pretending to be our allies, yet I still pay because I am an American, and I have to.

Want to change the United States? Vote with your feet. Educate yourself and vote accordingly.

 

[DanielJohn]

You are not the magisterium of the Church. You do not get to decide what is truth. It is protected from error; you aren’t.

SW85, I agree with the magisterium, Romans 13, the Lord’s words “render unto Caesar”, etc. I’m not a rebel. I’m not angry. And I’m not like a protestant that looks for a reason to disagree with the magisterium. The only time I could disagree with the magisterium is if it is impossible for me to believe what the magisterium says.

If a Roman tax-collector had come into apostle Paul’s house saying “I’m here to collect Caesar’s tax for killing people that have not heard the gospel,” then it is impossible for me to see how the paying of that particular tax is not a mortal sin. It is impossible for me to see how that particular tax could belong to Caesar.

I just want to answer my Lord’s calling for me to live on this earth for a little while without being forced to participate in the killing of innocent human beings. That’s all. I’m not asking for much.

But all of this isn’t what my question is about anyway. My question is this: assuming that it is a mortal sin to pay Caesar’s tax for killing babies, is it also a mortal sin to pay Caesar’s tax for giving vasectomies to men in order to make it impossible for them to kill their own babies?

In a few more hours, I will explain why I’m asking this question.

 

[markomalley]

If a man knows that his government uses tax dollars to pay for abortions, then it is a mortal sin for that man to pay taxes to his government.

If you do not believe that is a mortal sin, then please do not respond to this thread. I’m only interested in what my brothers and sisters in Christ think concerning my question.

My question is this: if a man knows that his government uses tax dollars to pay for vasectomies, rather than abortions, then is it a mortal sin for that man to pay taxes to his government?

You need to look up “formal cooperation” vs “material cooperation” (subdivided into “immediate” and “mediate”, with “mediate” being further subdivided into “proximate” and “remote”).

As a taxpayer, your cooperation with the sin of federally-funded abortion would be extremely remote mediate material cooperation. There is literally no way you would be culpable for the sin of abortion.

See this article recently written by Jimmy Akin. It does a really good, clear job of explaining the concept of cooperation.

 

[DanielJohn]

Depending on our God-given abilities, the Lord calls each one of His people to various assignments in this life, some to simple assignments, and others to more challenging assignments. This is what the Lord called me to do. He said, “Daniel John, your wife was an eight month old unborn child on the day an eight month old unborn child became your country’s first casualty of terrorism on the campus of what would become your alma mater. Then, as soon as you opened your mother’s womb, your governor, and later your commander in chief, made unnecessary abortion legal. I have given you the ability to solve complicated puzzles, and based on the four words etched over honest Abe’s head on that penny in your pocket, it should very easy for you to complete the task I’m giving you. Here is your mission: figure out how you can live a typical lifespan in your country without going to prison, without becoming a fugitive, and without having any participation whatsoever in the killing of innocent human beings. On your mark. Get set. Go!”

Thanks for all the responses. I should have opened this thread with the words, “According to my conscious.” If the moderator could make that change, I would appreciate it. I will now explain why I asked the question. First, let me say that there are only two groups of people inhabiting the earth, the Church and the World. These two groups need to be kept separate. It’s the only way we can live together on this earth.

I understand the World’s problem. Apparently, some of her members make unwanted babies even though they can’t even afford the cost of killing them. The Church does not have this problem, because her members obey her Prince, and His laws prevent unwanted babies from being made in the first place.

However, His laws do not solve the World’s problem, because her members will never let the Church’s Prince rule over them. Therefore, the World wants all inhabitants of the earth, both her members and the members of the Church, to help cover the cost of killing her unwanted babies.

But there is another solution to the World’s problem that neither the Church nor the World has considered yet. The World can provide vasectomies to her male members instead of abortions to her female members. The cost is about the same.

Each female is only capable of making 5 to 10 unwanted babies whereas each male is capable of making thousands of unwanted babies. Therefore, the World’s top priority would be to set a limit to the number of unwanted babies each male can make before it becomes mandatory for him to get a vasectomy. We will call this limit X.

Sometimes, a female member of the World does not know which male made the baby inside of her. Therefore, the World may also need to set a limit to the number of unwanted babies with unknown fathers each female can make before it becomes mandatory for her to get a female sterilization. We will call this limit Y.

Unwanted babies that are not killed need an orphanage to live in until foster parents can be found. There must be two different types of orphanages, if there aren’t two already. One is the Church’s orphanage, and the other is the World’s orphanage. The two orphanages must be kept separate.

The Church’s orphanage cannot tell the World’s orphanage which kinds of foster parents to give babies to, and the World’s orphanage cannot tell the Church’s orphanage which kinds of foster parents to give babies to.

The biological parents would decide which of the two orphanages to give their unwanted baby to. If the World sets the aforementioned limits, X and Y, low enough, then the two orphanages will be able to receive ALL unwanted babies made on earth. There will be no reason to kill any of them.

Not only will all the unwanted babies be able to live on this earth, but they will also be able to live long enough to hear the Church’s good news. This good news, of course, is that her Prince came and died on this earth so that her members can live in a much better place after they die.

 

[mritosa]

DanielJohn,
To give a short answer to your original question, I would say that if the mutilation a person for the purpose of denying God’s design of fertility is a mortal sin, then yes, supporting that (in any way) is sinful. It is grave sin, but as it was mentioned earlier, it is remote mediate material cooperation if it is tax dollars that are going to it.

It seems to me that there are different levels of cooperation with sin involved with the theoretical world in which the HHS mandate sticks. Raymond Cardinal Burke stated (I need a reference, I know) that it would be formal cooperation (unified intention with the sinful act) for an employer to provide the objectionable health coverage. I’m not really sure about this … it seems to be more like proximate material cooperation, but I’ll have to find that reference. On another level is the employee’s culpability in just paying for the insurance. To me, it seems like this is nothing but remote material cooperation just like paying taxes. It is putting money in a big bucket that is used for mostly noble causes, but also sinful ones. Therefore, it should be morally licit to contribute as long as there is something like a letter to the insurance company, employer, and government to stop what they are doing. One can’t just be silent. In this case, that of the employee, if they solicit the immoral services (abortion, sterilization, etc.) then they are certainly culpable too.
On another level is a parent whose insurance will pay for an abortion for his/her daughter. If he is providing the means, then he is culpable of proximate material cooperation. It is in this case that the assumption is drawn out: The parent needs to have control over how that product is used. I, for instance, will never buy the pill since it will have no contraceptive effect on the male body (I’m pretty sure) but I better make sure that if anyone else were to use my coverage (like my future family) I could be culpable.

These are mostly my own impressions of everything from following all the news stories, but I’m really looking for a practical guide to it all. I may be changing my insurance coverage soon (potential new employer) or getting my own insurance privately. Do I have an obligation to look for insurance that does not provide for immoral “treatments” or is all just the same remote material cooperation in evil anyways?